CALIFORNIA
v.
KRIVDA ET AL.

U.S. | 1972-10-24
No. 71-651
409 U.S. 33 Supreme Court of the United States (1972) Caution
Also reported at: 34 L. Ed. 2d 45 · 93 S. Ct. 32 · 1972 U.S. LEXIS 15 · SCDB 1972-004
Cited by 76 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The California Supreme Court suppressed evidence of marijuana obtained from a warrantless police search of respondents' trash, citing a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the U.S. Supreme Court could not determine whether the state court based its decision on the federal Constitution, the California Constitution, or both. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for clarification, as it lacked jurisdiction to review state decisions resting on adequate independent state constitutional grounds.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

On the basis of evidence obtained in a police search of respondents’ trash, respondents were charged with possession of marihuana in violation of § 11530 of the California Health & Safety Code. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the superior court’s judgment of dismissal and order suppressing the evidence on the grounds that, under the circumstances of this case, respondents “had a reasonable expectation that their trash would not be rummaged through and picked over by police officers acting without a search warrant.” People v. Krivda, 5 Cal. 3d 357, 366-367, 486 P. 2d 1262, 1268 (1971) (en banc).

We granted certiorari. 405 U. S. 1039. After briefing and argument, however, we are unable to determine whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both. In reaching its result in this case, the California court cited pertinent excerpts from its earlier decision in People v. Edwards, 71 Cal. 2d 1096, 458 P. 2d 713 (1969) (en banc), which relied specifically upon both the state and federal provisions. 5 Cal. 3d, at 367, 486 P. 2d, at 1269.

Thus, as in Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194, 196-197 (1965), “[wjhile we might speculate from the choice of words used in the opinion, and the authorities cited by the court, which provision was the basis for the judgment of the state court, we are unable to say with any degree of certainty that the judgment of the California Supreme Court was not based on an adequate and independent nonfederal ground.” We therefore vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, supra; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940); State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 (1939).

We intimate no view on the merits of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issue presented.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (26 total)

  • State v. Schultz, 388 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
    …State, 518 S.W. 2d 247 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Smith v. State, 510 P. 2d 793 (Alaska 1973); Croker v. State, 477 P. 2d 122 (Wyo.1970). The contrary view is illustrated in People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 96 Cal.Rptr. 62, 486 P. 2d 1262 (1971), vacated, 409 U.S. 33, 93 S.Ct. 32, 34 L.Ed.2d 45 (1972), reaffirmed, 8 Cal .3d 623, 105 Cal.Rptr. 521, 504 P. 2d 457 (1973): The placement of one’s trash barrels onto the sidewalk for collection is not, however, necessarily an abandonment of one’s trash to the police o…
  • Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979)
    …diction in this case. Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207, 210 (1935). At least, it is suggested, the matter is sufficiently uncertain that we should remand for clarification as to the ground upon which the judgment rested. California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33, 35 (1972). Based on our reading of the opinion, however, we are satisfied that even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment, the Delaware Supreme Court did not intend to rest its decision independently on th…
  • Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1983)
    …039] see, e. g., Minnesota v. National Tea Co, 309 U. S. 551 (1940), or continued a case, see, e. g., Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945), in order to obtain clarification about the nature of a state court decision. See also California v. Krivda, 409 U. S. 33 (1972). In more recent cases, we have ourselves examined state law to determine whether state courts have used federal law to guide their application of state law or to provide the actual basis for the decision that was reached. See Texas v. Brown,…

Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw